♪ > Welcome to a This Week In South Carolina , Special Report from inside the South Carolina Senate Chamber, I'm Gavin Jackson.

Days before the start of the 2026 session, we were given exclusive access to the chamber beyond the rail, as they say here to the floor, where 46 members, 34 Republicans and 12 Democrats work three days a week from mid-January to mid-May.

I spoke with Senate President Thomas Alexander of Oconee, Senate Majority Leader and Rules Committee Chairman Shane Massey of Edgefield and Labor, Commerce, and Industry Chairman Tom Davis of Beaufort in this wide ranging interview.

Senator Massey, we're about to kick off the final year of the 126th South Control General Assembly.

What are the priorities for the Republican caucus in the Senate this year?

> Yeah.

Thanks, Gavin.

Thanks for doing this.

This is a great location.

I'm glad... were able to share the Senate Chamber with, with all the viewers.

We're excited to get started again.

I mean, we, you know... we're very fortunate in South Carolina that, I mean, it's, this is a wonderful place.

It's a great state.

A lot of people want to come here that can present challenges sometimes.

But we do have some challenges that we need to address.

And, we're going to start off to try to really toughen our DUI laws.

This is something that we've heard about for a while, something that Senator Davis has been working on for a while as well, to try to strengthen those laws, to try to cut down on our DUI rates.

You're going to see us, focus on charter school accountability.

We've been reading too much on the front pages, about charter school issues.

We want charter schools to be successful.

That's our first, our first option for school choice.

And we want them to be successful.

And a lot of parents expect them to be successful.

But we need to make some changes and some updates to those laws.

And then we're going to take some, some real efforts to add some regulatory reform to try to, try to crack down on that and make those, those regulations more responsive and more in line with what our laws are.

And also better serving the citizens.

There's a number of other issues that we're going to tackle.

Those things are going to take us the first few weeks.

And then we'll have to adapt as things go along as well.

Gavin> And just to piggyback on that, Senator, when we're talking about, you know, strengthening DUI laws does that come to help complement what you did with tort reform last year and liquor liability and help really reduce some of those insurance rates.

That law took effect this January.

Sen.

Massey> It's all related.

It is, it's all related.

We want to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities on our roadways.

A lot of that is caused by alcohol consumption.

But I think we also recognize that the criminal penalties associated with that conduct need to increase as well.

And this is something, as I mentioned, Senator Davis has been working on for a few years.

We finally got it, right there.

So I think we're going to have that debate early in January.

And I expect there's going to be some conversation about it.

There's going to be some fights, because... there are a lot of loopholes built in our existing law, which is one of the problems we have to fix.

So I expect we're going to have some fights on that.

And, we're ready for it.

Gavin> And before I go to President Alexander, I want to just ask you, for people watching, understanding the statehouse, how closely do y'all work with your counterparts over in the House and then as well as with the governor?

I know there's always been a bit of friction, but the Republicans have enjoyed this trifecta.

Made even more powerful with the supermajorities in both chambers.

So how do you lead?

How do you shape the agenda?

And then how do you deal with, folks within your own caucus, geographically and different issues that they want to pursue?

Sen.

Massey> Well, there's a lot to that.

Gavin> I know, there's a lot of long questions, so get ready.

Sen.

Massey> That's fine, that's fine.

I'll say, I'll say this, though.

I think it's very difficult to lead if you don't communicate with other leaders.

And this is something that President Alexander and I have made a real effort at.

We have regular conversations with House leadership.

We have a good relationship.

With the speaker and House leadership.

So I think there have been times in the past where there's been friction between House and Senate.

We, and we enjoy ribbing each other.

That's part of the process.

But, the president has, done a very good job of ensuring that we work well with the House.

We communicate about priorities and to make sure we're not doing the same thing at the same time.

We get along really well.

And I think, I think what you've seen over the last few years, with some of the successes that we've had, has been the result of that communication.

That if the, if the president and the speaker did not have that good relationship, it would have been more difficult than it was.

And to your other point, we have over the last several years, we've had a good relationship with the governor as well.

<Absolutely> We... the president and I have had multiple conversations with the governor and his staff this year, this off season.

So I think... we get along really well, and I really think that's important because the success that South Carolina has been enjoying, is largely the result of us getting along and us cooperating.

Doesn't mean, we always agree.

We're not supposed to, but we have honest conversations.

And we, I think we represent South Carolina better because we all do communicate.

Gavin> And, President Alexander, if you could pick up on that a little bit, just talking about the governor.

And then also when you look at it nationwide and other legislatures and how that works versus maybe for better or worse than some other places, how do you peg that?

> Well, I think our focus has been putting South Carolinians first.

And I think if you put the people first, then the rest of it comes along.

As the leader said, we can have our differences with, whether it's the House or with the governor, but we find a way to work together.

The governor likes to use his "three Cs."

You know, so we kind of, have a little fun with that.

But I think that, that is a core.

But it does take communication and willing to, cooperate and find a way to move things forward for the state of South Carolina.

And, you know, South Carolina is not Washington, D.C.

We still know each other.

We respect each other.

The decorum of the Senate, I think is very important for us, making sure, that we conduct our business in an appropriate way.

And you do hear stories from other, state legislatures of how folks don't get along, and really, it's just not South Carolina's nature.

We want to work, with what's the best interest of the people of South Carolina.

But, sometimes we may have three different roads that we travel to get there.

But at the end of the day, we want to get to the same place.

Gavin> And we'll talk about roads in a minute too.

[laughter] But, President Alexander, you've been in the Senate since 1994.

And you've won reelection continuously since.

You first became Senate President in 2021 and were unanimously reelected in December 2024.

So as a result, you preside over this chamber, you keep order, you keep things moving along with the support of staff.

You also chair the Interstate Cooperation Committee and Legislative Oversight Committee.

But I want to talk to you about a bill that you prefiled S.686 that would prohibit public agencies and entities from awarding grants and contracts based on race.

This follows a similar executive order signed by the governor in December.

So tell us about this bill and why you see the need to codify the governor's order.

Sen.

Alexander> Well, and I think it does need to... the executive order does need to be codified.

It needs to go through the legislative process.

And, what we're saying there is that it becomes a level playing field, that we're putting, that folks... have a equal chance, for, for them to compete.

So I think, again, it's putting South Carolinians first and have that opportunity.

It's not precluding anyone from being successful with contracts.

It's just making sure that there's a level playing field from that standpoint.

And it stems, I think, even maybe from a U.S.

Supreme Court decision as well, too, from that standpoint.

So I think that it's just the right policy.

And, I'm sure that it'll get some debate, as well, as we try to move forward from that standpoint.

Gavin> And that bill kind of goes hand in glove with the House passed bill, the anti-diversity equity inclusion bill, the DEI bill that passed last year, H.3927.

That's been in Senate Judiciary since last April.

That bill bans all state agencies, public schools and local governments from giving preferential treatment in hiring or enrollment decisions.

And it reinforces state and federal discrimination law, based on person's race, gender, religion or other aspects of their identity.

So, do you see that moving in concert with that bill you're talking about?

Sen.

Alexander> Yeah, I think they go hand in hand together.

So, I would think the Judiciary Committee hopefully will be, moving that relatively early in the session.

And we'll have that opportunity to have that discussion, in concert with that.

So I do see them going hand in hand from that standpoint.

Gavin> Senator Davis, energy was a huge priority of last year.

And it got through, a major bill got through, that streamlined regulations as well as allowed Dominion Energy and state utility Santee Cooper to partner on a new gas plant down in Canadys amid growing demand for energy.

That demand for energy has not abated here or nationwide.

And that's primarily due to those data, those energy hungry data centers.

And there's a lot of concerns over those data centers.

I'm sure you've heard of those.

And people have talked about those.

And a lot of that information is kind of limited, especially to the public when it comes to how much energy they need and the water needs of those.

So what do you say to folks that have concerns about that when we're talking about this bigger energy debate about these data centers?

Do you think there's enough safeguards in place?

Do you think we need more oversight when it comes to developing those?

> First of all, in regard, the concerns they are legitimate and they need to be addressed.

And to your second question, do we have regulations in place that are adequate?

The answer to that is "no."

The data centers, look, are going to be a part of our economic future.

I mean, across industry sectors using AI technologies in consonant with that, you're going to need data centers to provide that AI support.

But in terms of externalities, one would be energy.

I mean, they require a lot of energy.

And the leader really took the lead on this last session in regard to making sure that the generation needs of these large users, hyperscalers, like data centers, making sure that they pay the cost of the new generation that's necessary.

And making sure that, that cost is not socialized among the rate base in general.

Because it's not fair for existing ratepayers to subsidize these huge energy needs.

So I think that's going to need to be taken up for best practices.

In regard to other externalities, the water needed to cool, the surface water, groundwater.

There are new cutting edge technologies that I think we ought to require.

Closed systems, where they don't need to necessarily rely upon new water coming in, but they can use a closed system, evaporated water, and use that.

I think those best practices need to be codified.

Questions in regard to noise or light.

Again, technologies exist to mitigate those noise impacts.

Technologies exist to mitigate those, those light impacts.

And I think that's necessary to protect communities.

And then I think there's a real issue in regard to sighting these centers.

That came out of the recent discussion in Colleton County, where there was a proposal to locate a data center near the ACE basin.

Clearly, that's not an appropriate place for a data center.

So I think, we've relied historically on local governments, sort of, you know, passing land use ordinances and regulations and deciding where they want things located.

I think there's a role for the state to play here.

To say that there are certain areas that are obviously more conducive and lend themselves to data centers than others.

And I think there's a support role the state can play in that regard.

So there's a proper inventory of sites that are used.

So, to answer your question succinctly, they do need to be regulated.

There need to be safeguards put into place.

I think there are a lot of good ideas that have been presented.

And I think we'll come up with something this session, at least I hope we will.

Gavin> Just piggybacking on that.

We are talking about land use and zoning, and we're talking about our growing state, and there's concerns we can talk about DOT and traffic and all that.

But do you think that there needs to be more when it comes to land use decisions at the local level?

I know homeroll is always a difficult thing to talk about but, is that being floated around too when it comes to growth concerns?

Sen.

Davis> Yeah, and I'm a big homeroll proponent.

I mean, and I generally believe that government close to the people governs best.

But at the same time, you can look at the growth that has occurred throughout the state.

Not just in my neck of the woods in the Lowcountry, but in other parts of the state.

And I think that there's an unlevel playing field.

I think developers have a leg up.

I think developers have an ability to maybe shoehorn density into areas that can't necessarily accommodate that density.

So again, I mean, I think there's a role the state can play, to provide the localities with support to make sure that growth happens in a way that's manageable, sustainable, and is smart.

And I think there is a role for the state to play in that.

Gavin> And before I go to Senator Massey, I want to ask you just another question about energy.

You participated in a panel discussion in December, as part of the South Carolina Nuclear Summit here in Columbia with the chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

And it came on the heels of the news from Santee Cooper that they had entered into an agreement with Brookfield, which is a private investment group, that, if things check out over the coming months, could lead to the restarting of construction of the VC Summer reactors Two and Three.

That was a project that was, just wrought with fraud and failure back in 2017, to the tune of nine billion dollars.

We all remember that unfortunately.

If this deal does come to fruition, what does it mean for ratepayers and the state's energy needs?

Sen.

Davis> I think, in terms of the those energy needs, I'll take that first.

I mean, it's 2,200 megawatts of clean, carbon free power that will be brought onto the grid.

So that's obviously the objective.

You know, in terms of how do you complete it, how do you avoid the errors of the past?

I mean, the first thing is all the risks needs to fall on the private sector.

There can't be any backstopping, any subsidization of that project by ratepayers or taxpayers.

And that's the way the deal is structured.

Now in terms of relief, my understanding is that if the deal comes to fruition, the way it's contemplated that there will be a payment of cash by Brookfield to Santee Cooper of approximately 2.7 billion dollars.

That will then be used immediately to reduce the debt that Santee Cooper has that the ratepayers are now seeing in their bill.

So Santee Cooper and the corollary to that would be co-op customers should see some reduction in their power bills if that deal come to fruition.

Because 2.7 billion dollars of sunk cost will be taken off the rate base.

And so, I think things look very encouraging here.

Brookfield has already spent tens of millions of dollars in due diligence, but this thing is very complex.

And so we need to be realistic in terms of time.

It's going to be another year or so before they get to, I guess, a final contract.

But they're also concurrently with this interacting with the Department of Energy at the federal level to make sure that the loan guarantees, the credits, the sorts of things that are going to be necessary to make this project feasible.

Those are happening concurrently with what we're doing here on the ground, in terms of the deal with Brookfield.

So I'm encouraged, cautiously optimistic.

I think it was a good idea to keep those assets in good condition on the ground.

This General Assembly played a role in that back in 2018.

So I think there's a possibility for a win here out of something that was an embarrassing loss, quite frankly, a few years ago.

Gavin> Senator Massey, there's a desire to lower income taxes in the state, of course, too.

Some are talking about going to zero.

That's a, that's a big ask.

A lot of people on the campaign trail are talking about that a lot... this year.

The House has passed legislation to y'all near the end of last session that would benefit certain tax payers depending on, their income in their filings.

So, where is income tax?

Where's that debate going this year?

And especially, again, like this is a major talking point on the campaign trail about trying to get to zero.

Even though, nearly half of the budget is funded by income taxes.

Sen.

Massey> Well, I think most of the conversation you're hearing on the campaign trail doesn't acknowledge that fact.

Which is, which is an issue.

But look, I think, I think what's happened over a long period of time, over several decades is that our... we have created a system where... few people are paying a lot.

And so, one of the things the House is trying to do is to create a system where more people are paying less, as opposed to few people are paying more.

And that means broadening the base, and you have more taxpayers supporting the system.

Well, a lot of people don't like that because they're not paying right now.

And so there's going to be debate about that.

There's also going to be debate about what the rates should be.

I think our rates ought to be lower than where they are.

I think they're too high.

Now, we have been reducing those rates over the last several years.

We've been able to accelerate that because of the revenue growth that we've had.

We've had that revenue growth even though we've been reducing taxes.

And even though we've been saving more for rainy days to put ourselves in a good position.

We don't want to be where we were in 2008, in a very disastrous situation.

Where for those who may not be familiar with that or may remember, we ran out of all of our reserves before, within just a few months, at that point.

So we've been doing really well with financial management.

But what we're seeing because of the revenue growth is that we can, do better for taxpayers.

So I think we're going to have a conversation about that.

But I'll tell you this though, Gavin, the conversation has to be more than just income taxes.

We, I'll tell you I hear a whole lot more about property taxes than I do with income taxes.

There's also a conversation to be had about sales taxes because as I've said a few times, there are some places in the state where if you go out to eat, you're going to pay more in sales tax than you would pay in Los Angeles or Chicago.

I don't think people realize that, but that's an issue that we need to discuss.

We really need to have a larger conversation about taxes, and I know that that's difficult.

But we're very fortunate, Senator Sean Bennett has been a real leader on this issue who spent a lot of time on tax policy.

We can do this.

It's hard, but that's the work that we're supposed to do.

But I do anticipate that we're going to have debates on taxes this year.

Gavin> President Alexander, during the off season, there was Medical Affairs Subcommittee meetings held on restrictive abortion ban bill S.323 that would outlaw abortion in the state, at the moment of conception.

Make no exceptions except for the life of the mother.

And it could restrict IVF and contraception.

Could even lead to jail time for people that violate this bill if it was to be passed into law.

But the bill remains in subcommittee after failing to move forward.

Do you see this, any traction going forward with... with regards to abortion this session?

> I think that's where we'll let the legislative process work.

And I think that the subcommittee, in doing their work, they've spoken to it.

And... any further action would be up to that subcommittee or to the full Medical Affairs Committee.

But I think that, that demonstrates that when you let the process work, has the opportunity, to have the input.

And so, I think that's... where the committee is at this point.

And so I think that speaks for itself.

Gavin> We don't have much time left.

But I want to ask you about federal funding.

Because we did, the state was hit by Hurricane Helene, what, two years ago now?

<Yeah> And it, of course, hit the Upstate a lot worse than the rest of the state- Sen.

Alexander> All the way from Edgefield and this area.

Gavin> Tropical storm force winds.

Some 49 people died.

The deadliest storm in our history.

Some 5,000 homes damaged.

Caused about 323 million dollars in individual assistance from FEMA.

And then FEMA public assistance at approximately 1.3 billion dollars.

So, the state has paid hundreds of billions of dollars in matching funds too for recovery.

But I'm wondering if you've been following things at the national level when it comes to, what we hear from President Trump and his administration about dismantling FEMA or significantly restructuring FEMA and how that could affect, how we operate and deal with storms.

Because we seem to be hit by a storm every year almost.

Sen.

Alexander> Well, certainly we've tried to, to address that to some extent at the state level, under the leadership of Chairman Peeler, with the disaster funds that are available so that we can do, those matches that are required.

That we're supporting, and working with local governments.

You know, most of those matches, we're taking care of for municipalities and for counties from that standpoint.

I think what we're hearing from the feds or basically, though, is a restructuring, is not doing away with providing the financial resources, that are needed to help these communities.

It's a partnership from that standpoint.

So I think it's just a matter of how they restructure, the work that needs to be done by that agency.

And I tell you, having dealt with other unfortunate situations, like a, the tornado in Seneca a few years ago.

FEMA may have the resources, but you may be looking at 3 to 4 years down the road before those resources get there.

So I'm hoping as part of that, they will understand that it's important to get those resources back to those communities as quick as possible.

And they'll be able to streamline that structure of their support from that standpoint.

But, I will tell you that it was the people in those communities... neighbors helping neighbors, that made the difference in taking care of the needs of that local communities that we saw in the Upstate of South Carolina.

Gavin> And, Senator Davis, we don't have Transportation Committee Chairman Larry Grooms with us.

We only have so many, so many seats here.

But, there is a major push in the House right now to streamline and modernize SCDOT.

They have an ad hoc committee that met in the offseason, and will be dropping, legislation soon.

There's also discussions about the need for additional funding for DOT.

I remember back to the gas tax debate, the gas tax was increased back in 2017.

You fought pretty hard against that.

You wanted to see a lot of reforms to DOT as part of that, funding increase.

But legislation's about to drop soon, so I'm wondering what the appetite is over here in the Senate, when we're talking about streamlining regulations, trying to get some of these road and bridge projects approved that are badly needed in our state as we continue to grow at a breakneck pace.

Sen.

Davis> I mean, one of the material components of the House bill, my understanding is taking the NEPA approval process and delegating that down to the state level.

And letting the Secretary of Transportation, Justin Powell, letting them essentially administer or apply and work through that NEPA process.

Using the same standards but doing so at the state level.

That could really expedite decisions, in my opinion.

A lot of times things get lost in the shuffle up in Washington DC.

It gets lost in the bureaucracy.

And when it comes to road projects, time is money.

I mean, the longer it takes you to get something approved, the more expensive it's going to be.

So I think there's going to be some appetite in this General Assembly, in the Senate.

And again, to the president's point, it's got go through the legislative process.

But I think there's a lot of support for devolving those NEPA approval authorities down to the state level to be administered.

So I think you'll see a lot of appetite for that.

I do think that in recent years, Chairman Peeler has taken some of the recurring revenues we've had, not only recurring, but one time revenues and use that to supplement the money that's generated by the gas tax for our road systems.

I think you're going to continue to see that as being a priority for one time money and recurring funds.

I think the governor in his executive budget proposed, I think, a billion dollars.

I'm not sure if all that's recurring or not recurring, but I think the sentiment's a right one.

I mean, we're growing our interstate system is in the process of being upgraded.

But any financial assistance that can accelerate that process, I think will be welcome.

Gavin> So do you see that as being the workaround, essentially?

Instead of maybe increasing fees or other, you know, tolling perhaps, do you think that we should be using one time dollars or those surplus dollars or the growth revenue, to offset some of this inflation costs that have eaten into them?

Sen.

Davis> Yeah, I think, you know, in terms of use of one time money, this is I mean, capital projects like interstate repairs and new bridges and things of that nature.

Those are the sorts of things you want to use with one time money.

So I do think that's an appropriate use.

But in terms of, using other general fund dollars and dedicating it for the road system, I think that is one of the priorities.

And again, it's got to work through the system.

We'll find out what the House believes in ways and means.

We'll find out with the finance committee, what the Senate believes.

But I think historically, Chairman Peeler is focused on two things taking those excess moneys and using it to fund tax cuts, and also taking that money and using it to fund more interstate and highway repairs.

And I think you're probably gonna see an appetite for that in 2026.

Gavin> We have about three minutes left, and I have two questions for you, Senator Massey.

You sponsored a bill S.204 that would prohibit corporations owned by foreign adversaries such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea from purchasing more than 500,000 acres of land in the state.

A House bill restricts foreign adversaries from owning or leasing any land.

Neither of these bills moved last year, and they're in their respective judiciary committees.

Do you see that maybe getting any traction?

You hear a lot of talk about that, but we don't ever really see these bills move at the local level.

Sen.

Massey> I hope so.

We, so the Senate passed legislation in 2023.

And unfortunately the House wasn't able to take it up.

But we still hear about these concerns.

And I think, frankly, with, with China being as aggressive as it is in some areas, and you look around at the, at the land that, they have purchased in the United States and where that land is that they've purchased, it becomes a concern.

So, we still hear about this.

I'm hopeful that that legislation can can get some legs and we can start moving about that.

Gavin> And then also there's been action around the country to do a mid-decade redistricting in an effort to give Republicans in some states a greater advantage for the midterms.

Though right now it kind of looks like a wash over all between the Democrats and Republicans doing this.

Do you see this becoming, a thing this session?

Are we going to redraw maps in South Carolina in 2026?

Sen.

Massey> I think we've done our job.

We spent a lot of time on this in 2022 when we redrew before after the last census.

We spent a lot of time on it.

We had a very spirited debate here on this floor.

I think we've done our job.

We have right now, seven congressmen dedicated to South Carolina.

Six of those are Republican seats, or at least held by Republicans.

They're... some of them are very competitive.

That can certainly flip depending on candidates, and what's going on in the country.

My concern would be that if we try to get, get pretty with this and you try to make it 7-0, you could very easily go to 5 to 2 or even 4 to 3.

I'm not opposed to having more Republicans, but I am opposed to having fewer.

So I don't want to get too cute with it and and screw it up even more so.

But I think we've, what South Carolina needs to understand about this is that we spent a lot of time on this.

We did our job.

We were ahead of the game.

So what you're seeing in other states having to do it mid-cycle, we did it right the first time.

Gavin> And then really quickly, President Alexander, talking about earmarks, you sit on the finance committee, do you think earmarks are going to return this year?

Sen.

Alexander> Well, obviously we'll look to the chairman for, guidance and leadership on that.

But I do think that, obviously there are needs in the communities and we are very sensitive to those.

And, I'm sure that, you'll have a lot of discussion.

Gavin> Wonderful.

We'll be paying attention.

Gentlemen, thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

<Thank you> <Thanks Gavin> For South Carolina ETV, I'm Gavin Jackson at the Statehouse.

Be well, South Carolina.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪